{"id":6968,"date":"2018-01-19T15:24:35","date_gmt":"2018-01-19T14:24:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ipisresearch.be\/?post_type=publication&p=6968"},"modified":"2020-09-01T09:56:37","modified_gmt":"2020-09-01T07:56:37","slug":"arms-trade-highlights-november-december-2017","status":"publish","type":"weekly-briefing","link":"https:\/\/ipisresearch.be\/nl\/weekly-briefing\/arms-trade-highlights-november-december-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Arms Trade Highlights: November – December 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"

Data interpretation: a cautionary tale<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

As much as strong datasets are a prerequisite for strong interpretations, the framework used to interpret data is equally important. Which contextual factors are considered or not, which definitions applied or thresholds used will strongly impact the message that will emerge, especially out of complex, geo-political settings. An in-depth knowledge and consideration of all background factors involved (context, actors and processes) is, hence, needed to allow meaningful, nuanced analyses \u2013 and to avoid the pitfall of confusing correlation for causation.<\/p>\n

Take for instance Centre Delas’ \u201cInteractive Map: European weapons and refugees<\/a>\u201d. The map should give you the \u201clink between European arms export and flows of refugees and internally displaced persons, in order to determine whether there is any direct or indirect responsibility of EU Member States for situations of insecurity and violence that drive millions of people to flee their homes every year\u201d. A simple, causal link is thereby suggested between EU arms-exporting countries and the responsibility for displacement and migration. Within their broad definition of \u2018arms\u2019 and without consideration of the reality of arms trade (whereby arms exports are often disguised by being notionally sent to a different destination), this causal link appears straightforward. However, as the reality is more complex, caution is needed.<\/p>\n

Lets take the example of EU arms exports to Syria in 2015. According to this interactive map three EU countries authorized \u201carms\u201d transfers to Syria in 2015 (Belgium, Germany and the United Kingdom), and are, according to this map, therefore directly or indirectly responsible for the millions of refugees and internally displaced.<\/p>\n

First of all, all arms shipments from Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic and Romania to the alleged end-users Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey are excluded as well as sales to the Pentagon. All these \u2018end-users\u2019 are known suppliers of arms and ammunition to armed groups in Syria (see for instance The \u00a31bn of weapons flowing from Europe to Middle East<\/a>, 27 July 2016, The Guardian). De facto these EU countries should also be considered as exporting into Syria.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the end-use is ignored. The United Kingdom in its annual export report for 2015 reported an intended humanitarian end-use (bullet proof vests, components for armoured vehicles) or commercial\/civilian end-use (industrial generators) (1). Germany shipped cross-country vehicles and parts for ballistic protection for the United Nations mission (UNICEF) in Syria (2). Belgium shipped secondhand Zettelmeyer digging machines for civilian end-use (3). Their role as \u2018arms traders\u2019, hence, should be nuanced.<\/p>\n

This brief example demonstrates that one has to be careful with trying to deduce causality between these two data sets (EU \u201carms\u201d exports and refugees), especially as they are presented in this study.<\/p>\n

Notes:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n